THURSDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- A U.S. advisory panel recommended Thursday that 11- and 12-year-old girls be routinely vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also recommended that the vaccine, called Gardasil, be administered to girls as young as 9, at the provider's discretion, and for women up to age 26 who have not previously been vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV).

"The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made a historic vote today to recommend routine use of HPV vaccine for girls aged 11 to 12," Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at a Thursday news conference. "It's a very important day -- a breakthrough for women's health."

Some religious conservatives and other critics have expressed concern that giving the vaccine to children could encourage underage sex. But, according to Schuchat, no controversy arose at the panel's recent public meetings.

The panel's recommendation was hailed by health experts.

"It's a wonderful thing. It's good news all around," said Dr. Connie L. Trimble, associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics and pathology at Johns Hopkins' Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, in Baltimore. Trimble is working on a therapeutic vaccine for people already infected with the virus.

The advisory committee also recommended that the vaccine be included in the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines for children up to age 18 who are eligible for Medicaid, are uninsured or are Native American or Alaskan Native.

The recommendations will be passed along to the head of the CDC and to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for review, and are expected to be accepted.

Gardasil, manufactured by Merck & Co., is the first vaccine to protect against HPV, known to cause most cervical cancers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil earlier this month for girls and women aged 9 to 26. An FDA advisory panel had signed off on the vaccine in May.

Cervical cancer is the second most common malignant disease in women globally, causing an estimated 290,000 deaths worldwide each year. In the United States, some 10,400 new cases will be diagnosed this year, and 3,700 women will die from the disease.

The main cause of cervical cancer is continuous infection with HPV, especially HPV 16 and 18, which are spread by sexual contact. The virus also causes precancerous and benign cervical lesions and genital warts, and may be implicated in some anal and oral cancers. An estimated 20 million men and women in the United States are infected with HPV but, for most, the virus shows no symptoms and goes away on its own.

In a two-year study involving more than 12,000 women, Gardasil was found to be 100 percent effective against four types of human papillomavirus: 16 and 18, which are responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, and 6 and 11, which cause 90 percent of genital wart cases.

Merck has said the vaccine has the potential to reduce the annual number of new cervical cancer cases around the world from 500,000 to about 150,000, and cut deaths by more than two-thirds, to about 90,000.

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology earlier this month in Atlanta, scientists reported that the Gardasil vaccine was also 100 percent effective against vulvar and vaginal precancerous lesions caused by HPV types 16 and 18.

Like many other vaccinations, Gardasil will require three shots over six months. Even with the vaccine, women would still need to be screened for cervical cancer caused by other types of HPV, experts noted. This is most often accomplished by having a Pap test, which is still a very accurate indicator of a woman's cervical condition.

It's unclear whether insurance providers will pay for the cost of the vaccine -- estimated to be $120 -- for children not covered under the Vaccines for Children Program.

"We are hopeful that managed care will pick this up," Schuchat said. "Working on ensuring access is very important."

More information

Visit the National Immunization Program for more on childhood immunizations.

This makes me nervous. I think for most women it would not be needed. Why make a recommendation like this. Perhaps they should find a targeted group of at risk women. Beyond that it is a colassal waste of money and perhaps pain.

“Cervical cancer is the second most common malignant disease in women globally, causing an estimated 290,000 deaths worldwide each year. In the United States, some 10,400 new cases will be diagnosed this year, and 3,700 women will die from the disease.”

What a horrible thing to vaccinate girls to prevent getting a certain kind of cervical cancer when they grow up. Absolutely horrendous! What kind of animals are those people!

4776, I understand. I do think that in your daughter's case the vaccine is a great development.

It is the implementation of the vaccine that the drug companies desire that everyone had an issue with.

Considering the hype, I doubt that your daughter will have a problem getting vaccinated. They're really pushing it hard. I know that often vaccines are only effective before one becomes infected, but there are many vaccines that are effective even after infection takes place. This according to what I've seen is one of those. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

By the way, drug companies have been studying the effects of a chemical found in almonds on cancer prevention.

It is recommended that everyone eat at least three raw almonds a day especially if they are at risk. This may not be something that can be refined so it may never see the drug market, which means that the industry will neve tell us of its effectiveness against cancer.

Three raw (must be raw) almonds a day.

It is not expensive, and they're easy to find, and almonds are legal.

It's not much to purchase almonds for someone you love if it may help prevent them from getting cancer.

F*cking with the human reproductive system? By potentially saving a woman's life and her reproductive organs? Whatever.

And "routine" hardly translates to "mandatory". Even now, you do not have to have your child vaccinated. You can still claim a religious conflict. It's still legal to do that. Too much negative hysteria over something that could save lives.

My sister-in-law has cervical cancer. She's my age... 38. Has two young kids and is not expected to make it past September. She's already had a hysterectomy, intense chemotherapy and radiation and her quality of life is diminishing rapidly.

I think she would pay the $120 to ensure her daughter didn't suffer the same fate. I sure as hell would pay it for my two daughters. It's hardly expensive when you are talking about saving a life. It's peanuts.

Maddie, you cannot claim religious conflict anymore. You can now be jailed for trying to prevent the innoculation of your children, and they will be taken out of your care.

This is fact. There have been several trials in the US and they have all gone agains the individual and for the drug companies.

Forced innoculation is not a good thing.

Especially when the re is no accountability.

They can introduce a drug or vaccine with horrible side effects or that kills or permanently injures someone and you can seek no financial remedy whatsoever. Does this sound charatible to you?

They can force you to pay for vaccinating your children and if something should go wrong as a result, they have zero liability. You have to pay for the care of your child for the rest of his/her life if they survive.

Look at autism. It is medically accepted fact now that mercury present in small children causes or presents as autism. Mercury is used in vaccines routinely for the childhood vaccinations. it is used ostensibly as a preservative and is not considered an active ingredient. Therefore it is considered safe. Even though it is known to cause or contribute to autism.

Autism has increased by as much as 10,000% since the introduction of mercury into childhood vaccines.

Still think that forced innoculation is safe?

Yes these should be made available, but the companies that offer them should be held accountable and should be forced to pay for the healthcare for the treatment of anyone who suffers adverse effects of these treatments, up to the rest of the life of that person,in such cases as autism for example.

But they won't.

Is it bad that this young lady is dying of cancer? Of course.

It should not be used as an excuse to introduce draconian enforcement of involuntary medical treatment at the expense of the patient and without oversight or accountability, which is what is happening.

Maddie, you cannot claim religious conflict anymore. You can now be jailed for trying to prevent the innoculation of your children, and they will be taken out of your care.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 111088

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. A parent can, by law, claim religious conflict. I know for a fact because I notarize at least half a dozen statements every August in my office for these families. In addition, my children go to school with several of them and I know the parents well.

You cannot be jailed for it, nor can your kids be taken away. At least not in this State. Never even heard of such nonsense.

It is recommended that everyone eat at least three raw almonds a day especially if they are at risk. This may not be something that can be refined so it may never see the drug market, which means that the industry will neve tell us of its effectiveness against cancer.

Three raw (must be raw) almonds a day.

It is not expensive, and they're easy to find, and almonds are legal.

Quoting: 111072 111088

Three raw almonds a day and my youngest would be fighting for her life. She'd go into anaphylactic shock.

You could get your daughter vaccinated, and she could suffer side effects from the vaccine.

Or you could not get her vaccinated, and later on she could get cervical cancer.

So which is the bigger risk? The possibility of side effects, or the possibility of cancer? Are you going to personally collect data to decide? Are you going to let somebody decide for you? If so, who, and why should you trust them?

These are hard questions to answer, and no doubt a lot of people are going to make no decision at all. Someday perhaps they, or their daughters, will regret that inaction.

Three raw almonds a day and my youngest would be fighting for her life. She'd go into anaphylactic shock.

I wouldn't make a general rule of thumb.

Quoting: maddie 2421

Nice catch. There are countless people with severe allergeries to almonds, peanuts, etc. Now that could kill someone. We have no proof that this vaccine would do the same, but we have millions of death proving cervical cancer will.

Yes isn't this supposed to be for the HPV virus? Which causes the cancer... Just don't be a slut. Good ole fashioned vaccine for that shit. I mean they make it sound like all women are going to get cervical cancer eventually. What could even cause this if it was even true.

On 2005-08-19, Merck was found liable in the death of a man who took Vioxx. The plaintiff was awarded $253.4 million in damages, which were subsequently reduced to $20 million, the maximum allowed by Texas statute. In a followup case in New Jersey, Merck was found not liable. A third case is pending in Louisiana. Merck's stock fell $2.35 to $28.06/share (7.73%) in the minutes after the verdict was announced and three months later 7,000 Merck employees were laid off. At the time of the verdict, there were over 4,000 other lawsuits pending against Merck regarding Vioxx, and several thousand against Pfizer, the maker of competing anti-inflammatory drug Bextra, which, in some cases, causes an adverse skin reaction which burns patients "from the inside out."